Retrieve the final OutcomeReceipt for a completed operation.
WHEN TO USE: Use after get_status returns success/failure/partial to retrieve the full result with cost and reason codes. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for operations still in pending/executing state — use get_status first. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~50ms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is free, requires no key, has ~50ms latency, and returns cost and reason codes. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses labeled sections for usage, cost, and latency. Every line adds practical value with no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: when to call, when not to call, what the result contains, and operational constraints like cost and latency. It stops just short of stating error/not-found behavior, but this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies operation_id refers to a completed operation's ID and ties it to get_status, but it never explicitly explains how to obtain or format operation_id. The single parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the low coverage keeps this at a moderate score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve'), the specific resource ('final OutcomeReceipt'), and the condition ('for a completed operation'). It distinguishes itself from get_status by defining the exact state transition point, so an agent can confidently select it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections provide direct routing: use after get_status returns a terminal state, and avoid for pending/executing operations. It even names the alternative (get_status), making the decision boundary unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose with detailed descriptions and explicit WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE guidance. Potential overlaps like send_message vs. send_transactional_confirmation are well-differentiated by idempotency and use case, and compliance tools (check_compliance, screen_sanctions, map_trade_restriction) operate on different scopes without ambiguity.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (call_business, check_quota, find_business, send_message, verify_company_record). Even less standard verbs like lookup, map, and mint follow the same structural convention, and there are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent naming patterns.
With 23 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the breadth of the server's purpose—covering communication, scheduling, compliance, trade screening, and operational utilities—justifies the count. Each tool addresses a distinct capability area, and the set is not bloated with redundant or trivial functions.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the broker's domain: business discovery, booking (check, import, schedule), communication (send, receive, read), compliance (pre-flight checks, sanctions, trade restrictions, company verification), and operational support (quota, health, cost preview, key minting, async status/outcome). There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.